• beardown@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Their point is that libertarians in the rest of the world are closer to anarcho socialists than Ron Paul

        Kind of like how liberal means center right laissez faire economics everywhere except the United States

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Broad Strokes like this are never 100% accurate but to clarify why you’re being downvoted:

      In the USA pretty much all Libertarians are considered right wing. It’s not a progressive ideology, just one that prefers lower taxation. In contrast, Liberals are often the middle left of the US spectrum before Social Democrats and the farthest left would be fringe groups of Communist Radicals including anti-police and anti-property activists. On the other end, from center to furthest right would be: Moderates, Centrists, Libertarians including a smaller group of Tea-Party anti-tax activists, Rightwing Anarchists (small but vocal), Evangelical Theocrats, and Segregationists (so conservative that they want to return to early 1800s).

      You may notice this doesn’t leave a place for many ideologies such as meritocrats or anarcho-communists. Just a side effect of our two party system is that the side you align with doesn’t usually align with you as an individual. Sucks to suck, especially for those log cabin republicans.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        I know why I’m being downvoted, and why the liberals think they’re right, despite all evidence to the contrary and what words mean, thanks.

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Words mean what people who use them think they mean, and Americans using the word Libertarian mean right-wing anti-government and pro-business folks. This may not have been the word’s original meaning, but language changes.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Go ahead and draw a line that encompasses these ideologies:

          Libertarians support high social liberty and low economic support

          Democrats Liberals support high social liberty and high economic support

          Republicans Conservatives support low social liberty and low economic support

          Edited to clarify ideology vs. party. My original labels caused a lot of confusion.

          • 0000011110110111i@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Republicans support … low economic support

            Except for when it comes to GOP public office holders and corporations. In both those cases Republicans support high economic support.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              5 months ago

              Low economic support means lower taxes and minimal social programs, along with minimal subsidies and regulations on business.

              • Wrench@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Except Republicans fucking love subsidies if it’s for their donors.

                Corn? Oil? Fracking? Tanks for police? Make it rain!

                The poors? Fuck them, let their kids starve. Ohh, and let’s take away their ability to prevent or terminate pregnancies too, so more kids can starve.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  If there’s money to be had, sure, they want a piece. Conservatives would rather a lower tax and no subsidies and let the free market shake things out. They align with Libertarians on economic policy. Minimal taxes and maximum free market with no purse for social programs or subsidies.

                  • Wrench@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Only if you buy their dating profile pic. What they do in reality is the opposite. Red states take a LOT more subsidies than blue.

              • njm1314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s kind of silly to think that all political ideologies can be defined on one line isn’t it?

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Which is a different thing than a spectrum, right? Putting your little data points on a line, assigning number values to seizing the means and chattel slavery?

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I’m sorry. If conceptualizing political ideologies bores you, then why did you reply to my comment about exactly that?

                  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Because I was challenging your assumption that it is something you can or should do to derive a meaningful understanding of political beliefs and how they interact with each other, or for that matter, concepts of ethics and morality.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Its a spectrum that exists on the left running from libertarian to authoritarian. Not from capitalist to socialist. Democrats, Democratic socialist, social Democrats are not the same thing or part of a spectrum of Democrats. They are distinct and different ideologies that share a term but disagree on many other things. There are no left wing Republicans despite authoritarians existing on both the left and the right.

        Libertarianism is a left wing ideology born of the 19th century. The concept of a right-wing libertarian was not widely accepted before the red scare of the 1950s and '60s. Nearly a century later. Because it is quite literally impossible to be a capitalist and favor that kind of freedom. When your concept of freedom is the freedom of capital. If capital is free we are all slaves to it. And therefore not free.

        Deeper than that be very basic concept of capitalism is authoritarian in nature. It’s concept of private property as opposed to personal property requires a strong authority to enforce it and protect it. Being absolutely incompatible with actual libertarianism. Or the concept of public property as as envisioned by Actual libertarianism.

        Further it is a gross misrepresentation to saying that Libertarians or even anarchists are anti-government, or anti-economic redistribution. Strictly speaking that’s just capitalists. All Libertarians or anarchists want is small, more granular, and accountable government. Said government to collecting funds via taxing for robust public housing is not anti libertarian or even anti-anarchist. It’s just anti-capitalist.

        And just to finish off. Wikipedia isn’t necessarily authorative. And political Compass despite being wildly more accurate than the political Spectrum as often portrayed in Western Nations is still a misrepresentation.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Just one of many examples of how a linear scale cannot place all ideologies are current Libertarians. For example, I’m friends with a libertarian couple that are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Where would you place them? What about someone who supports social economic systems as well as Christian Nationalism? You can’t force data to fit into an assigned scale. A scale must be selected to accommodate the available data. There’s a reason professors have been using the political compass or Nolan Chart in higher education for the last twenty years.

          That organizational need only applies to ideologies, however. The current state of political parties in the US, for example, is somewhat linear.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Confused.

            Socially liberal fiscally conservative is the most meaningless label/platitude in American politics for sure. Even some Republicans will classified themselves that way. As well as Larp-atarians and democrats. Truly meaningless. Of the three groups Democrats probably come closest to actually being that. While still falling well far of it. Literally everyone is conservative with their resources, but wants everyone to believe they aren’t anti social.

            Homeless as an example. Everyone treats it like some complex unsolvable problem. When everybody knows the solution. Give them actual housing. The kind that allows them to have stability and security in their life. Not just access to a shower, and overnight use of a random cott in a roach/rat infested building that they’re forcefully turned out of every morning. With no regular access to actual meals. If we just “gave actual housing” to them. That would take care of 60 to 80% of homeless. The few that would remain don’t have homeless as a primary problem.

            A libertarian might debate whether we should do this at the town/city, county, state or national level. They wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t, or already are doing too much to address it. As many larp-atarians do. Larp-atarians can’t even agree on a basic concept of freedom beyond capital/capitalism.

            Many, but not all support legalization of marijuana. Many but not all even support equal rights. Whether it’s about racial, gender, or sexual lines. The term that best describes Larp-atarians, is selfish. Their views on freedoms etc don’t really extend much beyond themselves. And worse. Many will vote Republican if there isn’t a Larp-atarian on the ballot. Which considering how anti free speech etc they’ve been for decades. Makes them an extremely anti libertarian group to vote for whether you consider yourself right or left.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              And what about the Christian Nationalist who supports increased social programs from my example? Or are you going to redefine their beliefs with arrogant condemnation to fit your analysis as well?

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn’t make him a good person. Or even right.

                Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It’s one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It’s oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they’re not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.

                There’s no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It’s all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it’s the opposite.

                Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone’s a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.

                And just to finish since I sense that you’re getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.

                  There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.

                  • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.

                    Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.

                    Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.

                    If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?

                    Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.

                    In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.

                    Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.

                    So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?